Before the National Green Tribunal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Application No.148 of 2014 (SZ) IN THE MATTER OF: R. Rajendran Chinnavarikam Village Ambutr Taluk Vellore District ... Applicant AND 1.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai 2. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep. by its District Environmental Engineer Vaniyambadi 3. The State of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment Rep. by its Director Fort St. George, Chennai 4. M/s. N. Muneeba Tanning Company Thuthipet, Ambur Taluk Vellore District .... Respondents Counsel appearing for the applicant: Mr. A. Yogeshwaran Counsel appearing for the respondents: Smt. Rita Chandrasekar for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. M.K. Subramanian for Respondent No.3; M/s. K. Ramu & R. Vishnu for Respondent No.4 Page | 1 O R D E R Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani, Judicial Member Hon’ble Shri P.S. Rao, Expert Member __________________________________________________________________ Delivered by Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani, Judicial Member dated 5th July 2016 __________________________________________________________________ Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the internet Yes/No Whether the judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter Yes/No 1. The applicant owns agricultural lands in Survey No.31/A of Chinnavaraikkam Village, Ambur Taluk. Aggrieved by the discharge of effluents by the fourth respondent tannery into his lands, the applicant has prayed for initiating appropriate action by the respondents 1 to 3 against the fourth respondent, apart from closure of its unit and directing the official respondents 1 to 3 to assess compensation on the same scale, as assessed by the Loss of Ecology Authority in respect of the land affected by the tannery effluents and award compensation and also to direct the fourth respondent to pay compensation to the applicant for the damage caused to the applicant’s lands. 2. On coming to know that on 7.1.2014 a sewage cleaning tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN 67 C 3867 was found discharging tannery effluents in his land, the applicant immediately informed the same to the second respondent Pollution Control Board over phone and the officers of the second respondent Board have inspected the site and made enquiry after collecting samples. Thereafter, the second respondent Board has filed a complaint with Oomerabad Police Station and FIR was registered on 07.01.2014 in which it is stated that the driver of the tanker lorry informed that the effluent was discharged on the instructions of the fourth Page | 2 respondent. The FIR, on investigation, has been given Cr.No.10/2014 and forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur. 3. It is stated that afterwards the Board has ordered closure of the fourth respondent’s unit on 03.02.2014 and directed disconnection of electricity. It is seen in the report of the Board dated 28.01.2014 that on the analysis of the discharge made in the applicant’s land the TDS was found to be 7904 mg/l. The analysis was of the water that had stagnated in the applicant’s land and the applicant has filed a photograph of the tanker lorry discharging effluents. According to the applicant, it proves beyond doubt along with other documents of the conduct of the fourth respondent who is liable for prosecution and the fourth respondent unit has been closed temporarily at the instance of the Board. However there is every possibility of allowing the unit to continue to function and therefore the present application is filed on various grounds that the conduct of the fourth respondent in discharging effluents into the applicant’s land is illegal, contrary to theWater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act) and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. For the conduct of the fourth respondent, if it is allowed to function, it will amount to rewarding for the illegality, especially when the livelihood of the applicant is greatly affected and the applicant is entitled to compensation for the damages caused to his land, apart from many other grounds. 4. The first and second respondent Board in their reply dated 4.7.2014 have stated that the fourth respondent’s unit viz., M/s. Muneeba Tanning Company situated in Thuthipet Village, Ambur Taluk is a member of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP), a company of M/s Ambur Tannery Effluent Treatment Co. Ltd., Thuthipet Sector, Ambur (M/s AMBURTEC CETP). The fourth respondent unit has obtained “Consent” from the Board for processing raw skin to finished leather of 26 T/M and for the discharge of 30 KLD of trade effluent into Page | 3 the said CETP for further treatment in the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system provided by CETP. The fourth respondent unit was closed by the Board on various occasions viz., 25.11.2013 when it was closed along with other member units of CETP since there was a failure to achieve ZLD and they were found discharging untreated effluents on land and into Palar River. Subsequently the unit was permitted to use power supply only for lighting purpose on 29.11.2013 subject to certain conditions. 5. In the meanwhile, the present applicant has made a complaint on 07.01.2014 stating that the effluents from the fourth respondent unit was being transported and discharged on his (applicant) land and therefore requested for action. The said complaint was investigated on 07.01.2014 and found that the effluents generated from the unit and accumulated in tanks in the tannery were transported in private vehicle and discharged on applicant’s land and the effluents were found to be stagnated. Therefore FIR was filed in Oomerabad Police Station on 7.1.2014 under Sections 277 and 284 IPC against the tanker lorry owner S.R.S. Sakthi (M/s Priyanka Compressor Septic Tank Cleaning) and also against the defaulting tannery unit. The power supply given to the fourth respondent’s unit for lighting purpose was also withdrawn on 03.02.2014. It is stated by the Board that at present the applicant’s location is dry and no further effluent is found in the area. It is further stated that the unit has recently installed Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to treat the sewage and avoid transportation of sewage in tankers. The effluent from the unit was made to let into conveyance system of the CETP and the unit has assured on 20.03.2014 that such incident will not be repeated in future and requested for resumption of power supply and production. The unit and its surroundings was inspected by the District Environmental Engineer, Vaniyambadi on 20.03.2014 and it was found that the fourth respondent unit remained closed and power supply disconnected, effluents discharged on private land and the said Page | 4 area was found to be dry. The fourth respondent has installed STP on its own to treat the sewage generated from the premises and it is found to be under stabilization, the unit has provided pre treatment system and installed filter press for dewatering sludge, there was no transport of any sewage/trade effluent from the respondent unit and no fresh complaints are received and the unit was found to cooperate with the CETP in the implementation of ZLD system. 6. In these circumstances, the request of the unit for suspension of closure order and restoration of power supply was considered by the Board and the Board ordered suspension of closure order for a period up to 16.05.2014 in the proceedings dated 29.04.2014 after obtaining bank guarantee for a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs. 7. On the applicant filing the present application this Tribunal passed an order on 20.5.2014 directing the fourth respondent not to carry on any activity until further orders and thereafter the Board has ordered closure and stoppage of power supply. 8. As stated above, when the application was taken up for admission, in the order dated 20.05.2014, this Tribunal has granted interim order. The fourth respondent has filed M.A.No.157 of 2014 for vacating the above said interim order and the Tribunal, after elaborately discussing the entire facts, in the order dated 22.07.2014, has vacated the earlier order of injunction and permitted the fourth respondent unit to carry on its operation with restoration of power supply, provided the fourth respondent is otherwise legally eligible to continue its activities. 9. It is also relevant to note that immediately after the interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 22.07.2014 the applicant has filed M.A. No.137 of 2014 for fixing an early date for hearing and also filed M.A. No.135 of 2014 to deal with the Page | 5 fourth respondent for disobeying the interim order of the Tribunal in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010. 10. Having noted that admittedly the unit of the fourth respondent was not working as on date and without going into the merits of the case, this Tribunal in the order dated 13.6.2014 has closed M.A.135 of 2014 as unnecessary. 11. The third respondent has filed a memo, adopting the reply filed by the respondents 1 and 2. 12. In the reply affidavit filed by the fourth respondent dated 12.07.2014, the fourth respondent while stating that the applicant is liable for suppression of material facts, stated that the Board which has originally passed order of closure of the unit on 03.02.2014 and after elaborate enquiry and inspection, in the order dated 29.04.2014 the Board has suspended the order of closure.